I've always bristled about poll questions inquiring about how the president is "handling the economy," as if the economy were something the president (or anybody else) could "handle." But while the question is absurd and unfair, it is with us to stay, and I am delighted that it is now being used to bludgeon this lightweight.

The President is terribly mishandling the economy. The Gulf Coast drilling moratorium; advocating for greater debt, higher taxes and more regulation; siccing the EPA on Texas. Those are just a few of the things where the JEF is handling the economy badly.

He is going this way without an embassy being taken over and hundreds of American's hostage. Instead we have a country being ransacked and millions of Americans hostage to his narcisstic incompetence. He isn't even wearing a sweater.

Maxine Waters may be something of a bellwether. I think she's signaling to him that he'd better figure something out soon or "her people" will perhaps not be there for him at the polls in the numbers he will need.

Huxley-- I agree you are on to something. In a few weeks, when Independent voters focus on the new school year, the high cost of food and fuel, declining home values, the continued dead job market and no wage increases, Rasmussen will Show Obama to be consistently in Mid -50%s "Strongly Dissaprove", Mid-20%s Index negative; Gallop will have him stuck on 40% approval. THEN something BAD will happen, a stock crash, bank failures, or terrorist attack. Obama gets 45% of the popular vote, and blames redneck bigot voters. It's all baked into the cake.

He has to carry the white vote to win and get his minority constituencies to turn out in big numbers as they did in 2008. I don't know if the soccer moms & dads, having had their pockets picked over the last 3 years, are going to plunk for him again, and the minority turnout will be hard to repeat.

The bus tour is an attempt at reaching out to the white base in the "heartland" (which is also what Maxine doesn't like). It doesn't appear to be having any positive impact.

He's in a tricky spot. He told everyone last time that he would transcend race. So he can hardly say now "y'all are racist haters if you don't vote for me."

I think there's going to be something big coming on the amnesty front. And then he will really see the sleeping giant awaken. And Perry as gov of a border state can triangulate that issue like nobody's business.

Slight correction. He lost the white vote last time, but won with huge non-white voter margins. This time I don't think he's going to see that level of minority turnout. Hence he has to do better with whites - if not actually carry them - to make up the difference.

there's a closet full of them. the European markets are deader than Francisco Franco but don't know it yet because the signal hasn't made it from the brontosaur's body up the neck to its tiny brain yet. you'll have noticed that the Arab world has gone to shit. i gather than Iran will have nuclear bombs any day now to put on their missiles. Turkey apparently wants to revive the Ottoman Empire. Pakistan is collaborating with China, and has nuclear weapons. US anti-terror security is full of holes, and not taken seriously at high levels of government. the Administration is utterly corrupt on a level not seen since Grant and Harding, with billions funneled to favored corporations whose CEOs then shill for Obama and are appointed to Federal policy-making task forces and illegal arms funneled to Mexican drug cartels hostile to the Mexican government. and that's just Dad's shoes...don't rattle Mom's shoe rack.

((Maxine Waters may be something of a bellwether. I think she's signaling to him that he'd better figure something out soon or "her people" will perhaps not be there for him at the polls in the numbers he will need.))

I can see the desertion as quite a possible scenario for a whole bunch of reasons. I think the last of the bitter clingers would be his self-righteous white supporters of the ilk of Garofalo.

One thing the democrats consistenly get wrong is the human reaction to outside forces. They like to peg voters into certain blocks and assume they will continue voting in certain patterns. They don't. First of all, they don't stay in those blocks - people are mobile. Second, as they move into different blocks, they are influenced by others that are already in that block and exposure to the 'others' will influence their behavior.

The upward mobility of black voters is a good example of this. We have had a large influx of middle class blacks in this county (which is predominantly republican) and the voting patterns are not sliding democrat compared to the numbers of blacks moving in. Some are still on the plantation, but the numbers suggest that many are changing their voting patterns.

Once your voters start reacting to your rhetoric as they move from one pegged constituency to another, 'hey he's talking about me,' it is difficult to get them to vote against their new circumstance.

For the JOM parents and grandparents who had to read endless Dr. Seuss books to the kids: (from a commenter at Daily Caller)

Another book I'm reading:
It is titled “Dr. Seuss 2011″:I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like White House backdoor deals.I do not like when they kick the financial can, I do not like this ‘YES, WE CAN!’I do not like their spending sprees. Why can’t they get it — nothing’s free.I do not like their smug replies, broken promises and corruption ties.I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it — Nope nope nope!

Congressional approval; kind of like, we can tolerate and understand one teenager, but five at one time. Not so much..I do not look at the individual within either the house or senate, as much as what they do as a mob..I also think that a lot of it has to do with the dislike of the leadership. The mass of Americans dislike dip shit Harry, but yet we are stuck with his lack of action for another 15 months..if we dislike his leadership, or lack thereof, we dislike the entire Senate. FWIW

For the most part, legislative and executive action can only harm the economy, and often does. It can do nothing at all to help it apart from undoing past wrongs.

I beg to disagree. Government's core function -- the rule of law -- is extraordinarily valuable. Government is what ensures that you get paid for your work without having to undertake the huge expense of a private police force and army. Functioning rule of law creates huge disincentives for thieves and vandals, which means that far more people earn their own way rather than trying to steal other people's stuff. Government is what enforces contracts, so that even poor people can put out effort and industry and it's a pretty good bet that they will get what they earn.

Some people put their money in banks or buy stocks, and other people borrow money from banks or raise capital from the stock market. All of those people do this on the trust that the contracts will be enforced and laws followed. In a now-for-now transaction, the buyer gives the seller the money and the seller gives the buyer the product simultaneously, so there is little need for enforcement -- if the seller refuses to hand over the product the buyer refuses to hand over the money and vice versa. But when the buyer hands over money for something that is not going to be provided until later, they will only do so if they can trust that the contract will be enforced.

Without the government to provide the rule of law, huge swaths of wealth-creating economic activity simply will not take place.

So it's not just "get out of the way." The cronyism and corruption of the Obama administration is far more destructive of the wealth-creating industriousness of the populace than just the money directly stolen by them.

Cathyf, and the government's inserting itself into the GM bankruptcy to circumvent existing law? How did that failure to 'get out of the way' assist in providing 'trust and faith' that the little guy can get a fair shake?

Or the government's putting large corporate CEOs, who are exporting their jobs (GE) on the government board responsible for job creation, (and demanding that we bow to their awesome! having done something! job creating initiatives) who are really throwing up roadblocks to suppress their existing and newer competition help the little guy get a fair shake?

Minimal (or no) intervention by the government works best because the fog of too many departments/boards/laws/regulations makes it easy to camoflage (sp) the abuse taking place.

Fewest laws/regs and government doing nothing to interfere beyond that works best. Each subsequent intervention results in a tipping of the scales in unseen and many times unexpected consequences for someone.

Tammy Bruce is playing a clip of Allen West pointing out to Laura Ingraham how Maxine has been entrusted by the donks with keeping blacks feeling victimized and with El JEFe in charge, that makes her job harder.

Janet Daley, has another followup to the previous pinata/ breaking of the Times, in the Telegraph:

Never likely to be outdone when it comes to Left-liberal sententiousness, the New York Times has produced a corker of a leading article on our very own riots. With a mock-judicious bit of throat-clearing, it begins on a tone of apparently unimpeachable even-handedness: “nothing can justify or excuse the terrifying wave of lawlessness, etc, etc … the perpetrators must be punished, etc, etc.”

But it then lurches into an absurd compounding of the irrelevant and the ill-informed. David Cameron, the paper intones, is “a product of Britain’s upper classes and schools”. (This is scarcely intelligible English: does it mean upper-class schools?) And so, presumably as a consequence of his class-induced ignorance, “he has blamed the looting and burning on a compound of national moral decline, bad parenting and perverse inner-city subculture”.

For me it was the "rape of the Chrysler bondholders", wiped out for full funding of the union's coffers. The State of Indiana, repping the Teacher's Pensions, took that one to SCOTUS, and lost. The ruling was amended so as to prevent precedent.

I'd forgotten about that - what with the latest Chrysler/Fiat mess. I bow to your early skills at identifying the pedophiles in their exploratory phase while they were still cloaked in their awesome parenting skills.

Nowadays, the nanny state doesn't even bother cloaking and posts their dirty pics on the court docket whilst planning on their next scout jamboree. ;)

Heh. I read all the way through. I just objected to your idea that the "Government's core function -- the rule of law -- is extraordinarily valuable" since that sentiment is, to me at least, not operative and hasn't been for some time. When a citizen is unintentionally breaking rules and regulations by simply going about their daily lives, the government's core function is not valuable - but an impediment.

The rule of law is a legal maxim that provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself. The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law, a feature of Roman law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.

The concept of "liberal fascism" (to which the Obama administration strives mightily) is a rather precise insult in this case.

I don't believe that we're actually in sight of the trough yet. My bet is that we'll be able to see the edge of his abyss in the last week of January when the BEA confirms the depth of the 'negative growth' of the GDP for Q4. The NBER will not be able to go beyond that point in holding off on calling the start of the Obama Recession and their call will only be a confirmation of what the public already knows without doubt.

The MFM has already tried the "second Reagan" meme with results as risible as the concept itself. The President is telegraphing his next pathetically weak punch with the announcement that TOTUS will deliver a load of gargle after the naked emperor's vacation in Martha's Vineyard. He's going to propose something unacceptable and then try out Harry S Truman's "do nothing Congress' tactic until polling shows him the stupidity of the error (I would imagine that the 23 do nothing Dem Senators up for removal may have some rather unkind words for the President as he stumbles forward with this idiocy.)

Just my opinion and I would love to hear someone plausibly explain what the source of the growth in GDP necessary to brake BOzo's skid off the edge might be.

If they'd have done what I proposed, you'd be rolling in dough right now. Houses, cars, flat-screen TVs, riches beyond your imaginings. Therefore, your only smart move is to throw the Republicans out so I can get total control of the government again.

Yes, I did have total control of the entire government for my first two years, and my lackeys did everything that I proposed, but it obviously wasn't enough to be able to undo the failed policies of the past. There just wasn't enough time...

jimmyk - Aliens might attack us if they had a religious attachment to the environment.

As it happens, that's an underlying theme in David Brin's "Uplift" books, like "Startide Rising". There are even mentions in some of the books of intelligent races that were eliminated because they didn't live light on the land.

I'm not saying that makes any sense. In fact, I think that it is the weakest part of his Uplift universe, but I have to admit that it often propels the plots along, briskly.

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

So it's not out of fealty to Gaia, it's because somehow we threaten other civilizations even as we destroy our own.

I can make up my own scenarios: We need to really pump up the CO2, because it's possible that CO2 is toxic to some aliens, and when they try to attack us they all fall dead. Hey it's unlikely, but you can't be too careful.

David St. Hubbins: We say, "Love your brother." We don't say it really, but...
Nigel Tufnel: We don't literally say it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't say it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don't really, literally mean it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't believe it either, but...
Nigel Tufnel: But we're not racists.
David St. Hubbins: But that message should be clear, anyway.
Nigel Tufnel: We're anything but racists.
*****David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh...
Nigel Tufnel: Clever.
David St. Hubbins: Yeah, and clever.

As long as bgates has led us to "Spinal Tap" quotes that seem oddly relevant to the Obama Administration, I give you...

***

David St. Hubbins: Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation.

***

David St. Hubbins: [talking about Nigel] I'm tired of sticking up for his intelligence.

***

Tommy Pischedda: Excuse me... are you reading "Yes I Can"?
Limo Groupie: Yeah, have you read it?
Tommy Pischedda: Yeah, by Sammy Davis, Jr.?
Limo Groupie: Yeah.
Tommy Pischedda: You know what the title of that book should be? "Yes, I Can If Frank Sinatra Says It's OK".

Isn't that part of today's nondeportation order? Given the state of the election laws in each state and who is allowed to vote and how DOJ has been staffed, is it not possible we are about to have an election that is about the ability of parasites who take from the coffers to choose who sets the rules?

"SEATTLE – Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced that his office is suing ReconTrust Company, a subsidiary of Bank of America, for conducting illegal foreclosures on thousands of Washington homeowners."

--Just my opinion and I would love to hear someone plausibly explain what the source of the growth in GDP necessary to brake BOzo's skid off the edge might be.--

Rick,
One slightly plausible note I saw yesterday somewhere [probably RCM] was that private GDP has actually been doing better than the overall GDP number as porkulus's winding down has been a large component of the dismal GDP numbers. Now that's only one small data point so it's not likely to make a lot of difference but it was something I hadn't realized or read anywhere else.

I saw that piece. I don't believe that it was intentionally misleading but it didn't make any attempt to identify the probable effect of the reduction of government transfer payments (the expiration of the EUC benefits). Velocity remains close to zero with most of the very small increase in consumer credit activity limited to student loans. I don't know whether Congress will extend the FICA holiday which is set to expire at year end but the only increase in transfer payments which is occurring at the moment is, as Bill noted, in food stamps. There may be a bit in Medicaid as well but that's actually pretty much a null factor. As you know, GDP is Personal Consumption + Domestic investment + (Exports - Imports) + Government Consumption. Government spending is scheduled to be $137 billion lower next year and it takes $150 billion to move the GDP needle 1%. If the FICA holiday expires, that's another $150 billion which will not be available for consumption.

Then there's the not so little snag concerning the certain cuts coming at non-Federal level of governmental rackets.

I just can't make the numbers work for anything but zero to negative growth.